Pro-firearms organizations criticized U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro for trying to set back a key gun rights case after she signed onto a Justice Department brief seeking to revisit a major pro-Second Amendment ruling from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
The case, Benson v. United States, recently resulted in a three-judge panel striking down the District’s magazine prohibition, a major legal victory for gun owners and a potential foundation for expansive challenges to the banning of “assault weapons” and ammo across the country.
The ruling is specifically important because it may establish a legal pathway for the Supreme Court to take up the case on semiauto firearms and magazine bans, an issue that has remained unresolved at the federal level.
Pro-Second Amendment groups fear that Ms. Pirro and the DOJ’s latest filing requests for an en banc review, a legal process in which the full court rehears the case, could overturn or narrow the pro-gun rights decision.
“This move could stall or even eliminate the chances of the United States Supreme Court taking up the issue in the near future, particularly as similar cases from other states are already positioned for review,” the National Association for Gun Rights said.
“Pirro’s request is especially troubling, given the DOJ’s recent shift in position. After previously defending enforcement of the magazine ban, federal attorneys under the current administration argued the law was unconstitutional — an argument the appeals court ultimately accepted.”
The NAGR notes that the push for reconsideration “risks undermining that victory and preserving the legal framework for future enforcement of similar restrictions.”
The National Rifle Association said the panel issued a “thorough opinion correctly holding that D.C.’s magazine ban violates the Second Amendment.”
The NRA said that while the “United States is not defending the magazine ban, it would be regrettable if its brief helps bring about the continued enforcement of this flagrantly unconstitutional law.”
Gun Owners of America called the decision to file for a rehearing of the Benson case in en banc review “wrong.”
“Magazines are protected by the Second Amendment. PERIOD. Stop adopting anti-gun positions, DOJ!,” the organization said on X.
A spokesperson for Ms. Pirro’s office told The Washington Times that the office’s position in the Benson case is consistent with Justice Department policy.
“Our brief in Benson applies only to the (non-Possession of a Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device) issues and this position has been taken in coordination with Main Justice,” the spokesperson said. “The local D.C. Office of Attorney General is the only party in the Benson litigation that believes the large-capacity ammunition device law is constitutional.”
This is not the first time Ms. Pirro has been scrutinized about where she stands on gun rights.
In February, Ms. Pirro threatened to jail any person who came into the District with a firearm, stating, “You bring a gun into the District, you mark my words, you’re going to jail. I don’t care if you have a license in another district, and I don’t care if you’re a law-abiding gun owner somewhere else. You bring a gun into this District, count on going to jail, and hope you get the gun back.”
Following criticism of her remark, she said, “I am a proud supporter of the Second Amendment” and is a gun owner herself, advocating for responsibility and understanding local laws.
However, gun rights advocates pointed to Ms. Pirro’s support of the Assault Weapons Ban, a position she proudly touted when she ran for the Senate in New York in 2006.
